04.01.2013 06:07, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to share my successful attempt to confine pacemaker.
>>
>> I took pacemaker module barebone found in latest fedora's selinux-policy
>> (3.11.1-64.fc18) and
>> extended
Hi Andrew,
As suggested by you in ref. to bug id:5124 we have deployed Pacemaker 1.1.8.
We have been facing major issues:
1) lrmadmin fails to work with the following error:
WARN: lrm_signon: can not initiate connection
lrmd is not running.
WARN: Can't connect to lrmd!
Although, lrmd is running o
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to share my successful attempt to confine pacemaker.
>
> I took pacemaker module barebone found in latest fedora's selinux-policy
> (3.11.1-64.fc18) and
> extended it a bit, so now I have pacemaker and some pacemake
Thanks, that worked quite well. However, you might be interested to know that
it only worked for version 1.1.8-1 source RPM. If I used the 1.1.8-4 version,
it gives an error about not finding a file in
~/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/usr/libexec/lcrso/pacemaker.lcrso or something like that.
This still f
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Michael Papet wrote:
> I may be doing the impossible trying to get a pacemaker+corosync cluster to
> work on Centos 5.8 building from source.
Any particular reason not to use pre-built packages?
http://clusterlabs.org/rpm-next/
> I have some system constraints
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Shawn Paul Smith wrote:
> Hello. I am attempting to create RPMs for RHEL/CentOS 6.3 to install a
> Pacemaker 1.1.8 with Corosync 2.X cluster. I’ve so far done these steps on
> a fresh CentOS 6.3 install:
>
>
>
> ===Install Dependancies===
>
> sudo yum install rpm-
Did you subscribe before sending?
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Shridhar Sahukar wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I am not sure why the following mail didn't appear on the mailing list.
> Could you please help with some inputs?
>
> Regards,
> Shridhar
>
>
> Original Message Subject:
On 01/03/2013 06:21 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-01-02T14:19:09, Digimer wrote:
>
>> I suspect that, if you tested it, you would see that corosync fails over
>> to the second ring when the first ring's bond breaks/recovers. Same in
>> reverse. So you're protected against bond=!1 by tha
On 2013-01-02T14:19:09, Digimer wrote:
> I suspect that, if you tested it, you would see that corosync fails over
> to the second ring when the first ring's bond breaks/recovers. Same in
> reverse. So you're protected against bond=!1 by that second layer of
> redundancy.
>
> In my testing, only
